Grand Jury Testimony - Should the Defendant Testify?

This video explains grand jury testimony and the pros & cons of defendant testimony to the grand jury in their own defense. The video further considers the grand jury process and a grand jury hearing. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about grand jury testimony and the best criminal lawyers in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, defense lawyer Stephen Gustitis describes how grand jury testimony can help and hurt a criminal defendant. The grand jury process is explained, as well as how does a grand jury work. In particular, should a criminal defendant waive their right to silence and offer grand jury testimony to defend themselves? Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 28 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including grand jury testimony and the grand jury process.

Actual Authority vs Apparent Authority to Consent to Police Searches

This video explains actual authority vs apparent authority regarding a consent search in criminal law and how the police use a person's consent to avoid the 4th Amendment probable cause search requirement. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about actual authority vs apparent authority and criminal defense lawyers in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, criminal lawyer Stephen Gustitis explains the difference between actual authority vs apparent authority when the police request consent to search. The video also considers some simple examples of actual authority and apparent authority. The video is #2 in our series on consent searches and Fourth Amendment rights in criminal law. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 27 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including actual authority vs apparent authority to consent in criminal investigations.

What is Consent to Search in Criminal Law?

This video begins a new series on consent to search in criminal cases and how the police use a person's consent to avoid the 4th Amendment probable cause requirement. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about Fourth Amendment consent searches and criminal attorneys in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, attorney Stephen Gustitis explains what consent to search is and how suspects unknowingly waive their 4th Amendment right to a search based upon probable cause. The video also considers some limitations on consent searches. For example, consent must be voluntarily given, police cannot exceed the scope of a person's consent, and consent to search can be withdrawn at any time. The video begins our new series on consent searches in criminal cases. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 27 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including 4th Amendment consent searches in criminal investigations.

5th Amendment Pretrial Motions to Suppress Evidence of Criminal Confessions

This video explains 5th Amendment pretrial motions to suppress evidence of criminal confessions and how they are used to defend criminal charges. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for additional details about pre-trial motions to suppress confessions and criminal defense lawyers in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, criminal defense attorney Stephen Gustitis considers when pre-trial motions to suppress evidence can be used to suppress confessions from a criminal trial. The video discusses some common situations where a confession is illegally obtained. For example, a confession following an illegal detention, involuntary confessions, and confessions obtained in violation of Miranda rights. The video is #4 in our series on pretrial motions in criminal prosecutions and discusses criminal pre-trial proceedings. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 27 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including how to use pretrial motions to suppress confessions from criminal court.

4th Amendment Pretrial Motions to Suppress Evidence in Criminal Cases

This video considers 4th Amendment pretrial motions to suppress evidence and how they can be used to defend your criminal charges. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about pre-trial motions to suppress and criminal defense attorneys in Bryan-College Station, TX.

In this video, criminal lawyer Stephen Gustitis, defines when pre-trial motions to suppress evidence can be used to suppress evidence from a criminal trial. The video also discusses some common situations where the police illegally seize evidence. For example, following an illegal detention, searching without probable cause, and searching with a defective search warrant. The video is #2 in our series on pretrial motions in criminal prosecutions and discusses criminal pre-trial proceedings. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 27 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including how to use pretrial motions to suppress evidence to help defend your criminal case.

Right to Speedy Trial - Should You Request a Speedy Trial?

When considering your right to speedy trial, should you actively assert your speedy trial right by requesting a trial? This video is #3 in our series on your right to a speedy public trial provided by the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about your right to speedy trial meaning and whether you should assert your right to a speedy trial in Bryan-College Station, TX courts.

In this video, Stephen Gustitis explains your right to speedy trial and whether or not you should assert your speedy trial 6th Amendment right and request a trial. The video recommends you consult with your criminal defense attorney about whether a speedy trial is among good criminal defense strategies and tactics in your specific case. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 27 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategies, including the meaning and definition of the right to speedy trial.

Has Your 6th Amendment Right to Speedy Trial Been Violated?

What is your right to speedy trial when you face criminal charges? This video begins a new series on your right to a speedy public trial provided by the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In this video, Stephen Gustitis explains your right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The video discussed the meaning of the right to speedy trial, its definition in the courts, and how the courts test for a violation. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 27 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and criminal defense strategy, including the meaning and definition of the right to speedy trial.

Dangers Students Face in a University Disciplinary Hearing

What dangers do students face in a university disciplinary hearing? This video begins a new series on navigating a student disciplinary hearing in college. This video explains how to defend yourself in a student disciplinary hearing by utilizing a student's right to an advisor in a student conduct hearing.


In this video, Stephen Gustitis explains why a student charged with violating a university student code of conduct should hire a trained advisor. He also explains the unfairness inherent in the low burden of proof applicable in a student disciplinary hearing. Steve is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney practicing in Bryan-College Station, Texas. He has more than 27 years of experience in the field of criminal law and criminal defense in Brazos County. His videos cover a range of the best defense tactics and defense strategies, including defending allegations of a student code of conduct.

Know Your Rights When Dealing with Police

Enjoy our new playlist on managing encounters with the police.

What Are My Rights With Police? (When I Get Pulled Over)

What are your rights with the police when you get pulled over in your car? You can visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about defending criminal cases in Bryan-College Station, Texas.

What Are My Rights With the Police? (With Cops at My Door)

What are your rights with the police (with cops at your door)? You can visit https://www.gustitislaw.com for more information about your rights with cops at your house and defending criminal cases in Bryan-College Station, Texas.



This video covers your right to remain silent and your right to refuse to consent to search with cops at the door.

Bond Conditions Pose Problems For Bryan|College Station DWI

Persons accused of DWI in Bryan|College Station are often subject to "conditions of bond" imposed by the magistrate who set the bond after arrest. In cases where the accused person is alleged to have a BAC of .15 (or above) the magistrates have regularly imposed conditions which include abstaining from the use/possession of alcohol, a driving curfew, monthly meetings with a supervision officer, an alcohol detection device (interlock) for their automobile, and submission to an "alcohol/drug abuse" evaluation. These bond conditions are also imposed on persons accused of subsequent DWI 2nd & 3rd offenses. We have filed challenges to the imposition of these conditions as punitive or unreasonable, especially since the accused person hasn't yet been convicted of any crime. However, we've had limited success. 

If the curfew conditions create a hardship because of work or school scheduling we've been successful in getting our Brazos County judges to adjust the curfew to remove the hardship. Furthermore, I regularly object to my client submitting to any alcohol or drug abuse evaluation. At the time the bond conditions are imposed my client still has the right to remain silent. I instruct them to exercise it. I don't want my client speaking with a bond supervision officer about their recreational use of alcohol and drugs. Those admissions are not privileged and the supervision officer can be called later to testify against the client regarding these statements and admissions. So again, we've been successful in eliminating those types of "evaluation" conditions.

What our judges won't budge on is the alcohol detection device, or interlock. The interlock is designed to prevent someone from starting an automobile until the interlock determines there is NO alcohol in the person's system after they blow. Many clients tell me "well, I just won't drive a car, then." Here's the problem . . . if the client doesn't get an interlock for their car the judge will make them get a device that goes in their home. Yes, that's right. In your home. Furthermore, these devices are serviced and downloaded each month with a report going to both the judge and prosecutor. The devices are also equipped with a video camera which documents the identity of the person blowing into it.

Lastly, the magistrate who imposed these bond conditions then sends the order to the Texas Department of Public Safety. We've seen DPS take action to cancel the client's driver's license unless they obtain a special temporary license requiring an interlock device. It's a royal pain in the backside.

These bond conditions pose problems for Bryan|College Station citizens accused of alcohol related offenses. These conditions imposed unanticipated monthly expenses and provide an easy way for the prosecutors to obtain additional incriminating evidence. If you've been subject to these bond conditions after an arrest, it's important to consult with a good criminal defense lawyer who can help you navigate these troublesome waters. 

The Victim of an Illegal Police Detention

I enjoy walking in my neighborhood late at night.  It's quiet and dark.  The constellations are beautiful and I often see shooting stars streak across the night sky.  Now and then I'll see a man-made satellite move like a freight train low on the horizon. I'm regularly startled by white-tailed deer snorting deep in the woods. I occasionally see their dark silhouettes cross my path. Coyotes yip and howl and get all the neighborhood dogs in an uproar. 

But last night on my walk I was the victim of an illegal police detention. You see, my late night walks in the neighborhood had created quite a stir. Little did I know the local sheriff's department had a BOLO out on me. A tall suspicious man, dressed in black gloves, dark trousers, camouflaged coat, and dark cap had been regularly seen in the neighborhood . . . late at night. Sometimes he was seen running. Always avoiding oncoming traffic. But you see, my neighbors just didn't get out much. That was my favorite fleece jacket, my most comfortable black jeans, the warmest wool ski cap I've ever owned, and the best pair of cycling gloves on the market. 

So you know I was astonished at about 11:00pm when a sheriff's deputy came screaming down Indian Lakes Blvd. with his emergerncy lights rolling and his spotlight shining directly in my eyes. I was almost home . . . no more than 1/2 a mile from my house. "Sir, can you come with me please?"  Ha!  I knew it was a bad stop. The officer had no "reasonable suspicion" I was involved in any criminal activity. Just a bunch of noisy neighbors who didn't get out much wondering why some strange guy in camouflage and gloves was out walking in the dark each night.

I could have kept walking but I decided to submit to the officer's authority. Even though I knew this was a bad stop, I also knew I'd get patted down if I refused to cooperate. I also didn't want the Benchmade 581 Barrage assisted-opening folder I had in my pocket mistaken for a switchblade. I would have beaten that rap, but not the ride downtown. So I stopped and told the officer who I was.

You see, I know most of the cops in town. When I identified myself the officer immediately asked if I was the "lawyer Gustitis."  "Yes I am," I said. Out on my evening walk, enjoying the stars and the yipping coyotes. He apologized for not recognizing me, seeing how my wool cap was pulled down over my ears and forehead. He explained how the neighbors had been calling in a suspicious person report for weeks, but they'd never been able to catch the guy. I laughed and said, "Yea, that's me." No home invader, no burglar, just little-old-me trying to get some excercise and enjoy the night air.  But I still didn't tell him about my Benchmade, heck, he might have taken it for his own.

The kids got a kick of the story. I told them tonight I'm wearing my full-faced leather ski mask. That should get the neighbors in a stir.  You see, they just don't get out much.  If they did, they'd know it was little-old me out for a bit of excercise. 

The Acquittal of Amanda Knox

Amanda Knox was convicted of murdering her Italian roommate in 2009. She was sentenced to 26 years in prison. However, in a dramatic turn of events Amanda was acquitted by an Italian appeals court this past week and set free. The appeals court reversed the conviction based, partly, on a report that called into question DNA evidence used by prosecutors to convict her, and her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. Here are the interesting aspects of Amanda's case and Italy's criminal justice system that are very different from our own.

First, Amanda's appeal from her murder conviction was not a typical appeal we'd see here in Texas or the USA.  Amanda received a full new trial, in front of a new jury, with opportunity for a "second bite at the apple." We call that a "trial de novo." In some Texas lower courts a person can appeal and received a trial de novo.  But in most courts an appeal is based strictly on the record of the original trial. The questions are whether the jury had enough legal evidence to convict and whether there were errors occurring which might be reversible. The volume of criminal cases going through the USA systems is so high that trial de novo is an impracticable method of appeal. It would consume too much time and too many judicial resources.

The second aspect of the case is more frightening. In Italy, the government has the right to appeal an acquittal! That is, if the prosecutors lose THEY get a second bite at the apple, as well. The Knox prosecutors have vowed to appeal the acquittal. In Texas (and the USA), in contrast, once a person is acquitted any further prosecution is barred (prevented) by our concept of Double Jeopardy. That means a person cannot face conviction a second time if the government did not convince the jury to convict at the first trial. It's a Constitutional right under the 5th Amendment.

Luckily, Amanda Knox is now safely home in Seattle, Washington. Authorities say if Italy's appeal court reversed the acquittal, ordered a new trial, and Amanda was again convicted, her extradition back to Italy is highly unlikely.

The Death of the Bill of Rights

I'm no libertarian. (at least I don't think I am) But I'm appalled as the Bill of Rights continues to take a beating. I talked about the change in the "no-blow paradigm" months ago as it relates to DWI investigations in Bryan/College Station. I like Eric Peters' take on this tragic sequence of events. (h/t to my friend Robert Guest)

Speaking Now Required to Remain Silent

If you have the Constitutional right to remain silent and remain silent in the face of police interrogation, have you preserved your right or waived it? Well, in the recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) of Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court ruled 5-4 that a suspect must speak in order to assert the right to remain silent.

Van Chester Thompkins was given his Miranda warnings and remained silent for almost 3 hours. During that time, the police continued the interrogation. Thompkins eventually made an incriminating statement. A lower federal court found Thompkins had successfully asserted his right to remain silent by actually remaining silent. Further, the lower court held that officers should have ended the questioning. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court.

The majority of the Supreme Court said if police give Miranda warnings to a suspect, they may begin questioning and continue questioning the suspect unless the person clearly and unambiguously announces he desires to remain silent or wants a lawyer. Police are not required to expressly ask a suspect to waive their rights. If the suspect shows incredible stamina (like Thompkins) and manages to remain silent through hours of intense interrogation, he "waives" his right to silence if he eventually caves in to pressure. Consequently, his incriminating statements can be used against him.

AKE Motion for Expert Assistance

The Ake v. Oklahoma motion for expert assistance is one of the most powerful tools at the criminal defense lawyer's disposal. Typically utilized by criminal lawyers appointed by the court, the motion is used to compel trial judges to approve funding to hire anyone from a private investigator to forensic computer expert to polygraph examiner. The beauty of this approach is two-fold. First, the defense lawyer is authorized to approach the judge ex parte, meaning without the knowledge of the state prosecutors. This allows the lawyer to reveal his defensive theories to justify the expense without the prosecutor learning about it. Second, the hired expert now becomes part of the "defense team" and is protected by the attorney's work-product privilege. This means the expert is now prohibited from revealing anything about their investigation to anyone without the client's express authorization.

There are important hoops the defense lawyer must navigate to compel judges to approve funding. The lawyer must first show the defendant is indigent and cannot afford to hire an expert on their own. The lawyer must also show the need for the expert involves some "significant factor" at the guilt/innocence or punishment phase of trial. This usually means the expert will be needed to develop certain types of evidence used in rebuttal or used to challenge the prosecutor's case. At times, the defense lawyer might need to demonstrate the legal admissibility of the evidence they are attempting to develop through the expert.

Next, the lawyer must present the expert's qualifications. This takes the form of a resume or vita. The judge will also need an estimate of the fees and expenses anticipated. I typically use the letter sent to me by the expert setting forth the proposed work, including trial testimony.

Lastly, the lawyer must state that neither he, nor his client, is sufficiently knowledgeable in the area of expertise for which they need assistance. I suppose if a lawyer was trained in forensic child psychology, the lawyer could serve as his own expert in a child abuse case. Sounds pretty silly, but still one of the necessary hoops we need to jump through.

Brazos County judges are usually very cooperative in granting funding when I apply. They might quibble over the cost at times, and sometimes I'll need to convince my expert to work for a bit less, but usually I get exactly what I ask for. Then, with the funding in hand for my expert of choice, I feel more confident in providing my clients with an effective defense.

The Loss of Privilege

A potential new client (PNC) contacted my office recently. He was concerned about his recent communication with a member of the clergy from whom he'd sought spiritual advice. Seeking absolution with the assistance of his spiritual adviser, the PNC confessed, in confidence, an inappropriate sexual contact with a minor child.

If you read Article V of the Texas Rules of Evidence (concerning privileges) you'll find several rules about the admissibility of statements made to certain persons. For instance, communications made in confidence to your lawyer generally cannot be disclosed. Statements made in confidence to your spouse generally cannot be disclosed. And statements made to a member of the clergy generally cannot be disclosed.

Unfortunately for my PNC, and others similarly situated, there are other rules and statutes trumping the evidentiary rules of privileges. For example, if a person obtains the services of a lawyer to enable or aid anyone to commit a crime, the government can compel the divulging of those communications. Furthermore, the spousal privilege does not apply in situations where the communications concern a crime against the other spouse or any minor child. Finally, a major exception to the rules of privilege relate to the "duty to report" provisions of Texas Family Code.

Section 261.101 of the Family Code compels the reporting of "child abuse" by just about everyone on the face of the planet. In particular, "professionals" are required to personally report the occurrence of child abuse. Following is a quote from the Code concerning this duty:

(b)In this subsection, "professional" means an individual who is licensed or certified by the state or who is an employee of a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state and who, in the normal course of official duties or duties for which a license or certification is required, has direct contact with children. The term includes teachers, nurses, doctors, day-care employees, employees of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services, juvenile probation officers, and juvenile detention or correctional officers.

(c) The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, and an employee of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services.

Note section "c" destroys the privileged communications occurring with your pastor, social worker, mental health professional, and yes, even your lawyer. Dangerous stuff. In fact, my PNC is not the first person contacting my office to discuss privileges and the duty to report. I've had this discussion with pastors at my church, accountants, and others facing similar dilemmas.

Rest assured, I believe my duty of loyalty to a client trumps even the duty to report. Over my dead body will the government compel me to reveal communications made by clients in confidence. But others must be cautious to whom they reveal private information, especially when it involves alleged child abuse of any kind. If you have any questions, call and ask. I promise I will never tell!

Conservative Bias Alive and Well

Conservative bias is alive and well. Being one myself (a conservative, that is) I support tax breaks for business, strict constructionism, outlawing abortion, prayer in schools, limited government, and yes, even the U.S.-Mexico border fence. I voted for George W., Sarah Palin, and I don't believe water-boarding is necessarily torture. However, my life as a defense lawyer has brought me into contact with the underside of our affluent, gluttonous society. Many on the underside are from other countries, other cultures, other ethnicities.

Cultural sensitivity was the theme of several posts of late. Not really a conservative tag-line, but a required mindset for those taking oaths to zealously defend the criminally accused. Following my post about the Mexican national whom we recently defended, I received the following anonymus comment:

What utter nonsense! How far do you think we should take this cultural sensitivity? Should we allow rural Nigerians to stone witches to death like they do in their home country? How about honor killings, that Muslims do when their women "dishonor" the family? Is that ok? How about polygamy? Any problems there? Should we allow Afghans to lock their women in the house and not allow them medical care or education? How about equal treatment under the law? That means that American 19 year olds don't get to boink 12 year old girls in this country, and neither does anyone else. I don't recall being a foreigner being a defense in the penal code. If the person is in the country legally, he took an oath to obey the laws, and if he isn't, then he needs his ass deported. Bottom line, if they come here, they need to obey our laws. No exceptions.

Following the short essay in which I used Billy Hayes as a preamble before discussing fair treatment of foreigners within the American criminal justice system, I got this comment after sharing facts about a Zimbabwean man I represented last year:

My attitude is short sighted? Why is that? So they were here on student visas, but she can't speak or understand English? Didn't that make it sort of hard for her to go to school? Or did they have Shona ESL for her? Hell, maybe abandoning their child wasn't really a crime, it was some sort of Zimbabwean cultural ritual? Maybe they were teaching the kid to find its way home by celestial navigation? Its always amazing to me how you libs that abhor the thought of America being a superpower or of being a world leader or of having the premier military in the world are always so anxious for us to be the super nanny state of the world and provide cradle to grave everything to everyone, regardless of whether they belong here or not or regardless of whether we can afford it or not. The only good thing about it is that American taxpayers are starting to get tired of their wallets being raped daily to pay for all this liberal crap. The easiest way to solve that problem would be to put the bunch on the nearest plane bound for Zimbabwe and get their visas revoked. End of our problem and it saves money too. And now you are going to whine about oh their rights might be violated. Wrong, having a student visa is not a right, its a privilege and it can be revoked at any time. Bottom line, if I break the law, I get arrested for it and my life is messed up bigtime. Foreigners that come over here legally and break it should be sent home as soon as possible. People here illegally need to do their 6 months federal time and then be criminally deported so they can get 20 years federal time if they get caught here again. I wonder if you have looked into those border areas where illegals caught are jailed for 6 months? Amazing how illegal border crossings in those areas have dramatically decreased. But I bet you would probably lose money representing these people if any of that happened, right? We have a duty to treat our own citizens fairly, and perhaps if we weren't shelling out to support the citizens of so many other countries, we might actually have the funds to take care of our own problems.

This is what we call law-and-order bias in our vernacular. Typically a conservative malady. However, I don't mean to suggest all conservatives suffer with this affliction. Quite a few lefties do, too. Nonetheless, a large part of my skill as Bryan|College Station defense lawyer is used to identify the bias and eliminate it with the all powerful peremptory strike or challenge for cause. I'm sad though, that so many closets are filled with these misconceptions. As a Bible thumping conservative, though, I'll take time to pray for their understanding.

Does Anyone Remember Billy Hayes?

Who remembers Billy Hayes? Oh yea. He was the guy who got caught allegedly smuggling hashish out of Turkey in 1970. For you movie buffs, Billy Hayes' story was chronicled in the 1978 film, "Midnight Express."

A harrowing tale, to say the least. Billy is caught at the Istanbul airport with 5 pounds of hash strapped to his belly. He is tried in a strange legal system, betrayed by corrupt lawyers, and toyed with by capricious judges. He was originally sentenced to about four years in prison, but later his prison term was enhanced to 30. After 5 years imprisonment, Billy Hayes escaped to Greece from his Turkish hell hole.

Besides being a great movie (with a great soundtrack, btw), what's Billy Hayes have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, imagine a friend or loved one arrested in a foreign country. Would we demand the justice system ensured our friend understood the proceedings in their native language, that they were represented by lawyers and investigators who understood American background and culture, and that they were able to consult with representatives of the United States government as part of the process? I bet we would and I doubt if Billy Hayes was afforded this basic due process.

Now imagine you are from Mexico, from China, or from Zimbabwe. You come to the United States and get charged with a crime. Will you get the procedural due process we expect for our friends and family accused in a foreign country? Maybe not bro. In fact, although the American system of justice is designed to provide this basic fairness, not all accused foreigners are getting it. They are put to trial without interpreters and are represented by lawyers who don't realize (or don't care) about the importance of cultural and ethnic issues in the zealous defense of their clients.

So what do we do then? Well, part of our job as patriotic Americans is to ensure our system provides this basic procedural fairness to people from other countries, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds. When you are called to jury duty and a foreign national in on trial . . . ask the questions. Does this guy need a interpreter? Does the defense lawyer understand the cultural issues involved in the case? And don't assume the judge gets it - they often are just as clueless.